Bush Shuns Arafat in Death, As In Life

By Michael Abramowitz
RAMALLAH, Jan 10--In life, Yasser Afarat infuriated President Bush. In death, his presence seemed to loom over Bush's visit this morning to the Muqata, the compound that houses the offices of senior Palestinian officials and where Arafat spent the final three years of his life under virtual house arrest.

Arafat, who died in 2004, is buried on the compound. A giant photograph of the Palestinian guerilla-turned-president of the Palestinian National Authority hung on the wall, just over Bush's right shoulder, during his news conference with Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas. It was a curious juxtaposition for a president who systematically shunned Arafat after concluding he could not be trusted and who once described him as a "loser" to Jordan's King Abdullah II.

As my colleague Glenn Kessler has reported, Bush told Abdullah: "If people don't fight terrorism, I am not going to deal with them."

Bush is the first American president to call for a Palestinian state, Arafat's lifelong ambition. But his refusal to deal with Arafat provoked huge controversy in its time and was in part responsible for the criticism--rejected by the White House--that Bush was not engaged in the Middle East peace process for much of his presidency. At the same time, it is a decision for which Bush and his advisers clearly have no regrets.

In a recent speech about the Middle East, National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley cited Bush's refusal to deal with Arafat as part of what he sees as a Bush effort to reposition the region for a possible peace deal. "The world was shocked by this decision," Hadley noted. "But the President saw Arafat as a failed leader who was complicit in terror and who did not deliver for his people. The President called for a new Palestinian leadership -- one that put the interests of the Palestinian people first and understood that violence and terror compromised those interests."

In fact, Palestinians elected Arafat's longtime political nemesis, Hamas, to a parliamentary majority in January 2006. The vote gave the armed Islamic movement -- classified as a terrorist organization by the Bush administration and Israel --day-to-day control of the Palestinian Authority until last summer, when Hamas seized the Gaza Strip by force. Abbas then dissolved the Hamas-run government and declared an emergency administration, which continues to govern the West Bank and hosted Bush's visit today.

Unlike many official visitors to the Muqata, Bush was not planning to pay his respects at Arafat's grave. A White House spokesman said he was not asked to do so, nor did he volunteer--a decision that appears to have been noted by many Palestinians who still regard Arafat as a hero and the father of their movement for their own state.

AFP this morning quoted Rasha Qawas, 36, who lives near the Muqata, as saying: "The Americans are proud of their history and their symbols. By ignoring the mausoleum set up as our monument to historic leader Yasser Arafat, Bush is showing contempt for all our sacrifices."

Comments

"The world was shocked by this decision," the world noted. "But the world saw AWOL George as a failed leader who was complicit in terror and who did not deliver for his people. The world called for a new American leadership -- one that put the interests of the American people first and understood that violence and terror compromised those interests."

Of course, the United States does not torture and does not conduct state-sponsored terrorism. That would require a massive military intelligence apparatus and an unchecked military surveillance apparatus. The United States does not do such things. It follows the rule of law. And Singing Senator Larry Craig (Republican) is "Not Gay".

Posted by: Singing Senator | January 10, 2008 9:29 AM

You expected something presidential from this man?

Posted by: DCDOUG | January 10, 2008 9:59 AM

news for abramowitz: a Palestinian state WAS NOT Arafat's lifelong ambition. The destruction of Israel was.

Posted by: Robeste | January 10, 2008 10:30 AM

If only it was Puddin'head who died and not Arafat...

Posted by: Kase | January 10, 2008 10:54 AM

Bush should take a moment to reflect on the fact that the same reasons he disliked Arafat, most people in the entire World dislike Bush. Most people find Bush obnoxious, arrogant, untrustworthy, and not
very intelligent. In my opinion, if a poll
were to be conducted to find out who is the person most hated in the entire World--Bush would have the most vote.

Posted by: genuine1 | January 10, 2008 1:05 PM

Millions of people around the world who would once have been appalled at acts of terrorism now accept them as part of life. That is Yassir Arafat's life's work.

I doubt this trip of President Bush's will have any consequences one way or the other, but whether or not his not doing obeisance to Arafat's memory was politic I cannot find fault with his sentiment.

Posted by: Zathras | January 10, 2008 1:51 PM

Bush thinks that his refusal to deal with issues will just make people comply (Plantation Master Bush) or will make the issue go away (Big Dummie Bush). In reality, the issues get worse.

Posted by: Jack | January 10, 2008 2:29 PM

Vindictive and ill-mannered to the last. What a relief it will be to have an adult in the White House after this petulant boy.

Posted by: DFC | January 10, 2008 2:49 PM

This is just another example of the deplorable condition our international relations remain in.
Surely, when he behaves in this fashion, he cannot expect to be taken seriously by anyone on this wasted trip.
Bush obviously has no clue as to the meaning of the term, "diplomacy."

Posted by: Judy in TX | January 10, 2008 3:13 PM

For Hadley to suggest that Bush had some kind of strategy is absurd.

Posted by: rick in ok. | January 10, 2008 4:05 PM

Well, I see the left wing bloggers got the troops out to spread their blather. How could anyone expect otherwise?

Agreed that Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he does discern the difference between a true leader and a rabble rousing misfit. Arafat had no use for either truth or peace since neither matched his quest for power. We have many of his ilk in this country, Jesse, Al, Byrd, and a couple of homosexuals in congress. Birds of a feather...

Posted by: edible1 | January 10, 2008 4:11 PM

It PAINS me greatly to say it but this is one thing 'ole Bobble Brain got right during his 7 year rule, probably the only thing. Arafat was a dishonest broker, he never approached any attempt to resolve the issues in good faith. He was always a paramilitary anti-semite, not a visionary leader. Ehud Barak handed him a sweet deal nearly 10 years ago and Arafat spit in his face. I can't help but think that the Palestinians bear some modicum of blame for following him down a doomed path. But then again, we've stood by and watched W tear up the Constitution, destroy the economy, kill hundreds of thousands of innocents, and alienate us in the world.....

Posted by: Jt | January 10, 2008 4:33 PM

edible1 wrote:

"Agreed that Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he does discern the difference between a true leader and a rabble rousing misfit. Arafat had no use for either truth or peace since neither matched his quest for power."

So bush discerns the difference between a true leader and a rabble rousing misfit? Is this why he continues to support a dictator like musharraf who recently declared marshall law on his people? And talk about truth and peace? This man lied to get us into war..what would he know about truth or peace?

Posted by: cloudynites | January 10, 2008 4:43 PM

Someone needs to have the courage to send the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying Mass Murderer War Criminal Serial Killer in Chief and the VP of Torture to the International Criminal Court to face War Crimes.

The crime of genocide Crimes against humanity
The crime of aggression Crimes against United Nations and
associated personnel
War crimes Other categories of crimes

At the heart of the effort to establish the first permanent international criminal court in history is the question of the scope of the Court's jurisdiction. What crimes will be covered? And how will they be defined?

The draft statute contains two provisions concerning the Court's jurisdiction upon which there is broad agreement. One emphasizes that the Court is intended to have jurisdiction over only "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole". The second emphasizes that the Court is intended to be complementary to national criminal justice systems, i.e., the Court would exercise its jurisdiction only in cases where States do not exercise their national jurisdiction, because they are unable or unwilling to do so. This is referred to as the principle of complementarity. The principle is of great importance, because most countries would like to ensure that their own jurisdiction will not be superceded unnecessarily.

Many reasons have been put forward for restricting the Court's jurisdiction to only "the most serious crimes" of concern to the international community. Such reasons include the need to strengthen universal acceptance of the Court, which would pave the way for early ratification of the statute and establishment of the Court, and to avoid overburdening the Court and trivializing its role and function.

The crime of genocide
Support for the inclusion of the crime of genocide is virtually universal. Establishing an international criminal court where such crimes could be tried is felt by many to be an important reason for establishing the Court. Punishing the crime of genocide has been on the agenda of the United Nations since its formation.

Although crimes qualifying as genocide have been perpetrated since the earliest history of humankind, the term "genocide" is relatively new. It is said to combine the Greek genos, which means race or tribe, and the Latin cide, which means killing, and was coined to describe the Nazi activity in occupied Europe. Following the extermination of many Jews and members of other groups deemed undesirable by the Nazis in the Second World War, the Charter of the NÃ¼rnberg Tribunal recognized "persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds" as one of two categories of crimes against humanity, and established the principle of individual criminal responsibility for such crimes. As early as 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the principles of international law recognized by the Charter and Judgment of the NÃ¼rnberg Tribunal (the NÃ¼rnberg principles). In 1948, it adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defined genocide and proclaimed it a crime against international law, "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war". It was in the resolution adopting that Convention that the United Nations General Assembly first considered the establishment of an international criminal court. The General Assembly recognized that there would be an increasing need for an international judicial organ to try "certain crimes" under international law.

There is broad agreement to use the wording of the Genocide Convention in the draft statute for the Court. Article 5 of the draft statute has been taken directly from the Convention:

". . . Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

killing members of the group;

causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The following acts shall be punishable:
genocide;

conspiracy to commit genocide;

direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

attempt to commit genocide;

complicity in genocide."
The crime of aggression
There is support for the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the Court's jurisdiction, and there is opposition. Part of the debate centers on finding an acceptable definition of the crime of aggression. While arguments to include aggression centre on its extreme gravity and international repercussions, arguments against its inclusion centre on the lack of a sufficiently precise definition. Another part of the debate focused on the role of the Security Council in this regard. Pursuant to Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council "shall determine" the existence of an "act of aggression". Consequently, the issue is inseparably linked to the role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. It has been a difficult task to find an acceptable way to reflect in a balanced manner the responsibility of the Security Council, on the one hand, and the judicial independence of the Court, on the other.

The NÃ¼rnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the NÃ¼rnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.

Early efforts in the United Nations to create an international criminal court were set aside while the international community set out to define aggression. In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a definition of aggression. It defined aggression as necessarily being the act of a State, and described the specific actions of one State against another which constitute aggression. In its work on the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the United Nations International Law Commission, echoing the NÃ¼rnberg Tribunal, also concluded that individuals could be held accountable for acts of aggression. The Commission indicated the specific conduct for which individuals could be held accountable -- initiating, planning, preparing or waging aggression -- and that only those individuals in positions of leadership who order or actively participate in the acts could incur responsibility. Its definition focused on individual accountability rather than on the rule of international law which prohibits aggression by a State.

The difficulty, according to some, lies in framing a workable definition of aggression which would apply to a wide range of situations. The definition must be precise enough for individuals to know what acts are prohibited; and it must be general enough to cover a wide variety of acts which may occur in the future, and which may not yet have been conceived of. It must also describe the magnitude of the violation of the prohibition of the use of force contained in Article 2 of the UN Charter that would constitute the crime of aggression for which individuals may be held responsible and punished.

Some States are of the view that excluding aggression would leave a significant gap in the Court's jurisdiction. Another reason supporting its inclusion is also one of the strongest reasons put forward for creating the Court: to break the cycle of impunity. To hold individuals accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity while granting impunity to the architects of the conflict in which those crimes occurred is not justifiable. Others also hope that holding individuals responsible for the crime of aggression will act as a deterrent, and that by deterring an aggressor from beginning a conflict that may lead to a conflagration, the attendant war crimes and crimes against humanity might therefore also be prevented. Some also believe that it would be retrogressive to adopt a statute that does not include the crime of aggression 50 years after NÃ¼rnberg recognized such conduct as an international crime.

Some of those seeking a way to include aggression have proposed lessening the need for a definition by allowing the determination of an act of aggression to rest with the Security Council. The argument is, if States commit aggression for which individuals can be held accountable, then the Security Council should determine whether an act of aggression has been committed by a State and the Court should determine whether an individual was responsible for that act. This proposal elicits a concern regarding Security Council involvement which is also heard in other contexts: linking the work of the Court to the Security Council may lead to politicization of the Court. Some States are concerned regarding any connection between the Security Council and the Court.

The draft statute contains two options concerning the definition of aggression. One possible definition lists the specific acts for which an individual in a position of responsibility could be held accountable for aggression. The following acts would constitute the crime of aggression under this definition: planning, preparing, ordering, initiating, or carrying out an armed attack, or the use of force, or a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or agreements, by a State, against the territorial integrity of another State, against the provisions in the UN Charter.

A second possible definition provides a list of acts constituting aggression, which includes the following:

invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or military occupation, or annexation of territory by the use of force

bombardment by armed forces of a State against the territory of another State

the blockade of ports or coasts of a State

the use of armed forces of a State which are within the territory of another State in violation of the terms of an agreement between those States

a State allowing its territory to be used by another State for an act of aggression against a third State

a State sending armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries to carry out grave acts of armed force against another State
Consideration of the definition of aggression will continue at the Conference in Rome.
War crimes
The draft statute enumerates four different categories of war crimes. The first two categories apply to international armed conflicts and are largely based on well-established principles of international law. There is broad support for their inclusion:

A. Grave breaches of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts (largely derived from the Hague law, limiting the methods of waging war).

The third and fourth categories of war crimes apply to armed conflicts not of an international character. These categories are drawn from Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Second Additional Protocol to the four Geneva Conventions, respectively. The inclusion of these two provisions is still being debated.

C. In case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (which bars specified acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities)

D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law (based largely on the Second Additional Protocol to the four Geneva Conventions).

A. Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions
The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 extend special protections to certain categories of persons -- wounded and sick in armed forces in the field; wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea; POWs; and civilians during wartime. The ICC draft statute enumerates "grave breaches" as "any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

wilful killing;

torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; and the taking of hostages."
B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts
As noted previously, these provisions are derived largely from the Hague law. The list is quite extensive, and largely consists of rules of warfare recognized since the turn of the century or before, but also takes into account more recent developments in international humanitarian law. It enumerates as crimes such acts as:

targeting civilians;

targeting buildings devoted to art or science;

killing combatants who have laid down their arms and surrendered;

declaring that no quarter will be given;

pillaging;

using a flag of truce or other flag or insignia falsely, resulting in death or serious injury;

using civilians or other protected persons to protect specific locations from military attack;

intentional starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
Proposals have been made to include the following acts: the transfer by an occupying power of civilians into or out of certain territories; the use of particular weapons, such as poison or poisoned weapons, gas weapons, chemical weapons and bacteriological weapons; the use of anti-personnel mines, blinding laser weapons and nuclear weapons; and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment", or, more specifically, rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, enforced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.

C. In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions
Article 3 which is common to all four Geneva Conventions applies specifically to armed conflicts not of an international character. It sets out protection for those not taking an active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out of the combat) by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause. It enumerates four categories of prohibited acts:

violence, murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

the taking of hostages;

the passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without due process.
D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character
This category is largely derived from the second Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which specifically protects victims of non-international conflicts. In large part, this section of the draft statute resembles the text regarding serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflict in section B above, but applies to non-international conflict. It would prohibit acts such as:

attacks directed against civilian populations, or non-combatants, or against buildings or other targets bearing the emblem of the Geneva Conventions;

attacks directed against buildings dedicated to art or science, or monuments;

rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, enforced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and other forms of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

using children under the age of 15 in armed forces;

displacing the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict;

physical mutilation or medical or scientific experiments of persons in the power of another party to the conflict;

killing or wounding treacherously an adversary;

declaring that no quarter will be given;

destroying or seizing property when not necessary.
Proposals have been made to include provisions prohibiting using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, intentionally launching an attack knowing that such an attack would cause loss of life or injury to civilians, and slavery and the trade slave.

Crimes against humanity
The definition of crimes against humanity in article 5 of the draft statute is based on the NÃ¼rnberg Charter and takes into account subsequent developments of international law, particularly relating to the recent ad hoc international criminal tribunals. Proposals for the definition of crimes against humanity include acts which would constitute such a crime when committed in a widespread and/or systematic manner, and/or on a massive scale, and/or on specified grounds.

The definition of crimes against humanity contained in the NÃ¼rnberg Charter included the requirement that the prohibited acts be committed in connection with crimes against peace or war crimes. A decision has yet to be made as to whether the definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Statute will also include such acts when committed in peacetime. In this regard, the Yugoslavia Tribunal stated, "It is by now a settled rule of customary international law that crimes against humanity do not require a connection to international armed conflict."

According to the draft statute, the definition of this crime would include the following prohibited acts:

murder;

extermination;

enslavement;

deportation or forcible transfer of population;

torture;

rape or other sexual abuse of comparable gravity, or enforced prostitution;

persecution against a group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious (and possibly gender) grounds;

enforced disappearance of persons;

other inhumane acts causing serious injury to body or to mental or physical health;

detention, imprisonment or deprivation of liberty in violation of international law.
In the draft statute, extermination is defined as including the infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population.

Torture may be defined as it is in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, which requires that the acts be committed by a public official. Or torture may be defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, but excluding pain and suffering arising only from lawful sanctions.

The increasing number of forced disappearances of persons throughout the world prompted the United Nations General Assembly to adopt, in 1992, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Under the Declaration, the term enforced disappearance also covers situations when persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will by or with the approval of a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that abduction has taken place and the denial of information on the fate of those abducted, thereby placing them outside the protection of the law.

Crimes against United Nations and associated personnel
Concern for the safety of United Nations and associated personnel has escalated since the early 1990s, as peacekeepers, humanitarian workers and civilian staff of the United Nations and its agencies increasingly face threats and are targeted for kidnapping or murder.

On 9 December 1994, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, which sets out the respective rights and duties of States parties, and of United Nations and associated personnel, and affirms individual criminal responsibility for attacks against such personnel. The Convention itself does not, however, provide any protection or guarantee that perpetrators will be brought to justice. There is, therefore, a need to include crimes against United Nations and associated personnel in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Other categories of crimes
Terrorism
In the draft statute, the crime of terrorism is defined in three paragraphs:

Undertaking, organizing, sponsoring, ordering, facilitating, financing, encouraging or tolerating acts of violence against another State directed at persons or property and of such a nature as to create terror, fear or insecurity in the minds of public figures, groups of persons, the general public or populations, for whatever considerations and purposes of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or such other nature that may be invoked to justify them;

Offenses under six listed conventions, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages;

An offence involving the use of firearms, weapons, explosives and dangerous substances when used as a means to perpetrate indiscriminate violence involving death or serious bodily injury to persons or groups of persons or populations or serious damage to property.
Crimes involving the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
Some countries are interested in including the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, for particularly serious offences. The consequences of such drug trafficking for the world population are quite serious. The proposed definition of these crimes contained in the draft statute is largely drawn from the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 19 December 1988.

To believe that Bush has any historical context into which to place Arafat's contribution to Palestinians, is to believe that he knew who Musharraf was in 2000.
He knows nothing and wants to know nothing. This trip will be entirely without consequence for the future of either the Palestinians or the Israelis.
Unless, of course, he is secretly, behind the scenes, spreading the word that he going to attack Iran come hell or high water. Then, of course, there will be many consequences.

Posted by: cms1 | January 10, 2008 8:15 PM

Knowing full well that he completely failed in contributing anyting at all to the fictitious "middle east peace process", Bush is hoping to project some future success in hopes of a little undeserved positive press. He got it! Big Media is there for him once again. Meanwhile Israel has managed to gobble up another 7 years of missed opportunity. Israel has the same problem we do here in the United States. Facist leaders who don't represent their own people but always manage to drag them into whatever horror bleeds out of their maniacal decisions.
Peace is standing in line right behind the oil companies.

Posted by: Kevin Morgan | January 10, 2008 11:14 PM

as other folks have noted: chain-bushey have accomplished nothing, even in their own terms.

they aren't even foolish. though it takes talent not to see them, that way.